The court’s 2-1 decision yesterday overturned Proposition 8, the 2008 ballot innitiative that declared same-sex marriage illegal in the Golden State.

In 2010, Jude Vaughn R. Walker, the chief judge of the Federal District Court of the Northern District of California, overturned Prop. 8 on the grounds that it violated the equal protection rights of same-sex couples.

Tuesday’s decision did not take so strong of a stand, but it should be applauded nonetheless.

The two judges in favor of the overturn of Prop. 8 based their decision on the fact that the measure violated the 14th Amendment of the Constitution becasue it discriminates against a specific group of people.

“Proposition 8 serves no purpose and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples,” Judge Stephen R. Reinhardt wrote in the majority opinion.

“The Constitution simply does not allow for ‘laws of this sort’.”

Reinhardt and Judge Michael Hawkins should be applauded for such fair interpretation of the Constitution. There is no legitimate reason for same-sex couples to receive disparate treatment when it comes to marriage equality.

With an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court likely, it will still be some time before the right to marry is restored to gay Californians.

However, it is encouraging that both courts ruled in favor of marriage equality. The Daily Cougar hopes this trend continues all of the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

There are Olympic tickets in the mail, foreign stocks to monitor, and that statue in the garden whose fingertips need manicuring. Another article on the economy can probably wait until you’ve fed your pony in the attic and re-stabilized the aquarium in the basement.

If you aren’t Mitt Romney, this just might brighten your day: America’s unemployment rate has stumbled to the lowest point it’s been in three years. What’s strange is that some candidates aren’t too happy about it, while many that are have tread lightly.

Their justification isn’t flawed. It all stems from a universal idiom: If it looks like it’s too good to be true, it probably is. The numbers released are not all that glamorous, Ron Paul says.

In any other scenario, the reaction from the eastern hemisphere of the political spectrum would be commonplace. Disregard for the information wouldn’t just be appropriate, it would be expected.

But try repeating those sentiments to the single mother who’s just been employed as a Goodwill associate, or the just-hired law school graduate whose mounting loans has resulted in a cabinet’s worth of prescriptions — they just might change your mind. While some parties might view last week’s data as “just numbers,” it’s important to remember that every decimal represents an actual person with actual problems. The irony in these exchanges is that the gains are being devalued by groups whose own job security is ironclad.

The figures demonstrate not all is lost. The silver lining may not have found its way to everyone’s doorstep, but it’s still out there. The 11 million people who had given up looking for work over the course of the year are right to be apprehensive, as their neighbor’s good news isn’t necessarily their own.

It’s hard enough to find food as a university student, let alone as a fully-integrated member of society with other obligations. But success stories are not far and few between.

As rough as the year’s been for the unemployed, any news should be good news. While it may not be the most attractive idea, the fact remains that our circumstances could just as easily have gotten worse.

We’re obviously not in the clear yet. The country still sports the highest unemployment rate since any “post-war” era. Career outsourcing still hurts. Europe’s philandering can only mean that some sort of downturn is on the horizon.

But if nothing else, these concessions make the light shining on the unemployed a little brighter. It’s the catalyst for a recovery, and although it’s not instantaneous, changes are being made.

One day you really will lease that pony, but the steady improvement of the nation’s job sector will have to do for now.

Bryan Washington is a sociology freshman and may be reached at opinion@thedailycougar.com.

After dodging bullets for our freedom and watching comrades fall to the perils of war, I believe American soldiers are owed our support and recognition.

The least we could do is welcome our soldiers home with a celebratory event. We hold parades for champions of all major sport leagues. We hold an annual Thanksgiving Day parade. We hold a parade for Mardi Gras.

Why not for our veterans who put their lives in danger in Iraq? The war in Iraq leaves a bad taste in the mouth of many Americans — its end did not come without precious sacrifices — but this is more reason to celebrate the return of our surviving veterans.

On March 19, 2003, just two days after demanding the surrender of Saddam Hussein, America commenced a new preemptive form of defense strategy by invading Iraq.

According to former President George W. Bush, the people of the US would not live at the mercy of a regime holding weapons of mass destruction.

“We will meet that threat now with our Army, Air Force, Navy, Coast Guard and Marines so that we do not have to meet it later with armies of firefighters and police and doctors on the streets of our cities,” Bush said.

This war was not waged without scandal and controversy, including at our previous president’s adherence to the use of torture. Some claim Operation Iraqi Freedom was a war of hegemony — not liberation.

A 2011 Gallop poll showed 75 percent of Americans approved of withdrawing our troops from Iraq. The only remnants of America’s once enormous military presence in Iraq is America’s largest embassy in the world, which employs about 16,000 people.

According to the Washington Post, 4,474 US service members have died in the war in Iraq. The Lone Star State is among the states with the highest amount of casualties. Unfortunately, 417 soldiers from Texas have passed away. Some would argue that a parade is premature because the job in the Middle East is not finished.

We are still in Afghanistan — though the Obama administration has hinted that our presence there will dwindle in the near future.

And there is still a legitimate threat of Pakistan’s volatility and Iran becoming nuclear. That is a weak excuse, though. Why not have a parade at the conclusion of each war?

Highlighting the efforts of our troops will not hinder US keeping an eye on Iran and Pakistan.

In America we have a tendency to whitewash events in our history where the light is not flattering. But the souls of those who died need neither to be forgotten nor marginalized.

As the old adage goes, don’t ever bite the hand that feeds you. I think it is time to rethink the way we treat those who serve and protect this great nation, because we are insulting those who are the most important to our security. It’s not impossible. It’s not even a hard decision.

To our government leaders, just make it happen. That includes Obama and the derelict members of congress that we elected to protect our interests.

Christopher Shelton is a journalism junior and may be reached at opinion@thedailycougar.com.

The ad, in support of US Senate candidate Pete Hoekstra (R-MI), has his opponent, US Senator Debbie Stavenow (D-MI), and several Asian-American groups crying foul.

The ad begins with the sound of a Chinese gong and video of an Asian woman riding her bicycle through rice paddies. The traditional Chinese music clues the viewer into the fact that the woman they are looking at is not in America, but is instead in some frightening foreign country — possibly China, but the viewer won’t know if this is correct until looking up Hoekstra and reading his rants on how China is stealing US jobs.

The Asian woman continues her biking towards the viewer before stopping abruptly in front of the camera. The racism of the ad loses its subtlety as soon as the woman opens her mouth to speak.

“Debbie spend so much American money you borrow more and more from us,” says the American actor in carefully-chosen broken English.

“Your economy get very weak. Ours get very good. We take your jobs. Thank you, Debbie spend-it-now.”

The racism of this ad harkens back to the ethnocentric media landscape of the early to mid 20th century. It conjures images of Mickey Rooney’s Mr. Yunioshi in Breakfast at Tiffany’s and racist ads of the 1950s.

Hoekstra should apologize to Asian-Americans for the insensitivity of his commercial. Instead of stoking xenophobic fears, Hoekstra should focus on the real issues. He should see if he can make an honest win against Stavenow, a win not obtained through the use of a blatantly racist commercial.

In the course of a week, one of the most powerful and well-respected cancer foundations in the world has managed to nearly destroy their near-pristine image.

Susan G. Komen for the Cure announced on Tuesday that they would cease providing grants to Planned Parenthood for cancer screening services. The outrage flared almost instantly.

Many Komen donors threatened to redirect their support to Planned Parenthood, and Komen’s website was hacked the following night.

By Thursday, three high-level Komen employees had resigned, and 26 senators had asked Komen to reconsider their decision. They did by Friday, but the damage had already been done.

The once nigh-untouchable organization is now the subject of Facebook pages like “Defund the Komen Foundation” and affiliates all over the country are losing donors and sponsorships.

Komen Founder Nancy Brinker — sister of late Susan G. Komen, who died of breast cancer in 1980 — announced that the foundation has gone into PR red alert and will ask Ari Fleischer, former Bush administration White House press secretary and previous Komen consultant, to manage the PR crisis. Why did Komen de-funding Planned Parenthood make people so angry?

The Komen grants provided to Planned Parenthood were used to provide cancer screenings and mammogram referrals to women who otherwise would not have access to such preventative care. Komen pulled their grants due to political pressure at the expense of women’s health — the very thing they were supposed to stand for.

Brinker is Republican and donates to Republican candidates, but the Komen Foundation has remained apolitical, at least until recently. Last year, the foundation appointed far-right leaning, former Georgia gubernatorial candidate Karen Handel to the position of senior vice president of public policy. Handel has publicly voiced her opposition to Planned Parenthood.

Many Komen employees claim that she made the decision to cease the grants to Planned Parenthood, and that Fleischer was heavily involved as well. The Komen foundation claims that the decision to de-fund Planned Parenthood was made because of a new rule created by Handel that would prohibit them from supporting an organization under investigation.

Never mind that Komen is still funding multiple other organizations also under investigation or that the investigation into Planned Parenthood is motivated entirely by politics.

The Hyde Amendment — a rider routinely attached to annual appropriation bills since 1976 — prevents Planned Parenthood from using federal funds for abortion services. Every few years, a Senator decides to inspect Planned Parenthood’s books and make sure that the funds are being used accordingly. So far, none of these investigations have produced anything suspicious, and neither has Florida Rep. Cliff Stearns’ current investigation.

Planned Parenthood provides abortion services, which many people do not agree with, but abortions account for only three percent of the services that Planned Parenthood offers. The rest is preventative care, contraception and OB/GYN care.

The grants that they receive allow them to provide subsidized care to women who otherwise would not have access to health care. The Komen grants were used to provide breast cancer screenings and mammogram referrals.

When Komen pulled their funding from Planned Parenthood they showed the world they had become, in effect, a political organization.

Pandora’s box has been opened, and now many other instances of the foundation’s unsavory behavior are coming to light.

For example, Komen officials have been seeking legal action against other charity organizations for using the phrase “for the cure” as well as the color pink — as if cancer awareness is a profitable brand identity to be protected.

In one week, Komen has fallen in the public eye from a model charitable foundation to the evil empire of non-profits. Planned Parenthood, on the other hand, has garnered an outcry of public support and over $3 million in donations. The country stood up for women’s health, but the victory feels somewhat hollow.

We won a battle last week, but we lost the soul of a great force for women’s health to politics.

Emily Brooks is an economics senior and may be reached at opinion@thedailycougar.com.

Whether or not a new stadium and improving Hofheinz are changes you welcome, it’s impressive that so many students actually took the time to vote.

These kinds of results prove that the student body has enough pride in our University that they’re willing to pay for much-needed improvements that will affect UH for years after they walk across the stage.

Student approval for a stadium is much more than just another building on campus — it stands as a testament to Cougar spirit. Among all the improvements that are being made at UH, Tier One athletic teams and facilities will only help in our quest for national recognition as a Tier One university.

Most importantly, a new stadium and a better Hofheinz aren’t changes that will affect us so much as current students, but it’s important that we keep those that follow in our footsteps years from now.

These are improvements that most of us will be able to take full advantage of as alumni, but future students will have a more beautiful campus to enjoy as the University continues to improve its reputation and the caliber of students, faculty and staff members who are proud to call UH home.

Even if this wasn’t something you’re in favor of, a mere $45 increase of student fees per semester will go toward a change that will affect generations of Cougars long after we’re gone — that’s a small price to pay for something that will have a monumental impact on all aspects of our University.

The Syrian government reacted to the uprisings in the way that only an oppressive, totalitarian regime could despite that practically the entire United Nations was prepared to formally condemn the Syrian government for its heinous actions. Only Russia and China vetoed the UN resolution, spitting in the face of the right to not be murdered by one’s own government.

Despite international outrage at their actions, Moscow and Beijing adamantly stand by their decision to support Assad’s murderous reign. This is even after reports from a state-run Syrian newspaper that promised harsher methods of cracking down on the protests.

It was probably a sense of kinship that caused these two superpowers from the Cold War to support a totalitarian regime. When the first protests, sparked by the wave of uprisings in Egypt and Tunisia early last year, began to break out across Syria, Assad launched a brutal response with tanks and troops to squash the rebellion. It was the Middle East’s own Tiananmen Square. Russia also has economic concerns when vetoing a UN resolution to condemn Syria; Moscow is a major arms dealer to Syria.

What would the resolution have done? In typical UN fashion, the resolution to condemn Syria would have done just that and nothing more — in other words, absolutely nothing. According to British Foreign Secretary William Hague, the resolution “did not impose any sanctions, nor did it authorize military action.” All it would have requested was for Syria to answer the questions: Why are you killing your people? and Can you stop it, pretty please? The Syrian mass-murder apparatus run by Assad has denounced the international call for cessation of violence in his country, claiming it as an outright hostile attack on Syria — undoubtedly emboldened by the backing of his arms dealer on the Security Council.

On a resolution that would have done nothing but call to an end a crackdown that has resulted in at least 6,000 deaths since last year. The Chinese and Russians have sided with a madman, against America and her European allies.

The question comes down to what to do about the killings in Syria. In any other decade, America would probably be rolling in with her guns a-blazin’. C-130s would unleash a bombardment of good old American artillery down on Assad’s head. For those of who believe we went to Iraq for the oil, Syria’s right next door to Iraq. Not mention that by removing them, we would be further protecting our Israeli allies. For those of us who believe we went to Iraq to free the Iraqi people, Assad’s looking very much like Saddam at this point.

Maybe 10 years ago we could have done something like that — maybe 10 years from now. Unfortunately, America is still on the ropes after pulling out of two major wars, and despite recent positive upturns, we are still in danger of tail-spinning into another bout of recession. Most of the world would rather we mind our own business, and for now, that’s just an excuse for us to catch our breath. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization handled itself just fine in the toppling of Gaddafi. Given the situation, Assad should be no different.

If Israel is really looking for a fight, instead of attacking Iran and possibly drawing outrage from the Arab League, Israel should act in support of the Arab League who should push for a stronger condemnation against Syria, including an actual invasion to overthrow Assad.

The Arab League and the Muslim community have both been unfairly mislabeled by some in the West as backwards, freedom-hating terrorists when everyone knows this is clearly not the case. Islam is a peaceful religion and the Arab people are just like any other. As believers in human rights and liberty, the Arab League should do more than just call Syria out on this violent crackdown that has people looking for bodies of loved ones under supervision by snipers on neighboring rooftops.

The Arab League cannot tolerate this type of aggression that would seem to legitimize the negative portrayal of the Middle East to the West. The senseless slaughter of civilians in their own region should be brought to a stop by those closest around them. If more Arab nations could rebel against their destructive leaders like the people of Libya and Egypt did, freedom-hating groups like al-Qaeda and the Taliban would have no place to go.

Arab League, show Syria that sort of activity will no longer be tolerated. Show China and Russia that their vetoes — like UN resolutions in general, frankly -— mean nothing. Support the Syrian protestors and topple Assad. Gather strong international support to come down on Assad like a great hammer of democracy before more people have to suffer.

While the Arab League, the UN and the US all talk about how awful it is for China and Russia to veto a bill against killing innocent people, there are still people getting sniped from rooftops, and that’s what’s truly awful.

James Wang is a history freshman and may be reached at opinion@thedailycougar.com.

Greenberry originally committed to play for the Irish on May 27, 2011 and hoped to join his cousin, Tee Sheperd, on the field.

However, the opportunity to play right away in a major market for an up-and-coming program was too much for Greenberry to resist.

Greenberry’s high school coach at Washington Union (Calif.), Jeff Freitas, said that the choice was easy for the receiver after spending a weekend on campus at UH. He fell in love with the coaching staff, the city and felt comfortable with the offense.

Freitas said that Greenberry made the move because it felt right for him, and that for the first time during the entire recruiting process, he was making decision for himself and not for others.

Neither the coaching staff at UH or at Notre Dame anticipated the switch. The Fresno Bee reported that no one was aware of the switch until Greenberry walked into his signing ceremony wearing red instead of navy and gold.

Greenberry comes to UH ranked as the No. 7 receiver nationally and No. 46 player, regardless of position, according to Rivals.com.

As a senior, he caught 109 passes for a state-record 2,165 yards and 33 touchdowns to helped lead 14-0 Washington Union to the California Division III State Championship.

His size, speed and leaping ability will make him an asset in the Cougars’ offense from the start.

The Cougars capturing Greenberry is not an anomaly. It’s just the beginning of a new era of football at Robertson Stadium.

At UH’s press conference for National Signing Day, head coach Tony Levine said that chasing top talent will be the norm from now on. Even if the Cougars are said to be counted out of the race for a player, it’s worth trying because otherwise you would never know.

On “Face the Nation” Sunday, Priebus made a condescending statement comparing Obama to Francesco Schettino — the embattled Captain of the Costa Concordia. Schettino abandoned his ship on which 17 people would eventually die.

“We’re going to talk about our own little Captain Schettino, which is President Obama,” Priebus said. “Who is abandoning the ship here in the United States and is more interested in campaigning than doing his job as president.”

Priebus attempted to clarify on Fox News’ “America Live” with Megyn Kelly on Monday afternoon.

“The analogy was made — and it was an analogy of leadership — that in a time of crisis, this president is leaving the White House and campaigning nonstop all the time,” he said.

He continued, accusing those across the aisle of pandering for effect.

“I think it’s pretty clear, but you know, if people out there — especially on the Democratic side — want to try to make hay of it, they’re going to be able to do that.”

“Last Word” host Lawrence O’Donnell lambasted Priebus for his comments. So did Chris Matthews on his show. Both used these quotes to prove that Obama has been egregiously disrespected by the Republican Party.

While it is certainly true that Republicans have attempted to undercut Obama’s authority, this event was not indicative of that.

Was it an apt comparison? No, not at all.

There seems to be both disrespect and a deliberate attempt to discredit that echoes from both the republican establishment and the outliers of the party. This is apparent in the vehement criticism that he has faced since before his first day in the Oval Office.

It began with claims that Obama was a Socialist or Muslim extremist. The cover of The New Yorker in July 2008 makes a prime example.

It continued with birthers’ claims that he was born in Africa. There are still people who refuse to believe that Obama was born in the US, even though he released his birth certificate a year ago.

Congressman Joe Wilson had the audacity to shout “You lie!” in the House of Representatives in September 2009 when Obama denied that health care legislation would provide free coverage for illegal immigrants.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell stated that his number one goal was making sure Obama is a one-term President — not more important issues like the economy and unemployment or the spiraling national deficit.

I recount these events, not to hold a pity party for Obama, but to delve into the mindset of a party that is looking to delegitimize the president in any way possible.

With such overt examples that display a clear pattern of disrespect, it is easy to over-sensationalize any isolated event by blindly throwing darts at similar events and claiming to hit the bull’s-eye.

And sure, I believe that Priebus crossed the line in comparing the president to an accused murderer. But let us not overreact to a bad comparison.

As members of the media, we hold a responsibility to not over-sensationalize news or create narratives based on our own biases.

Fox News was formed out of the perceived lack of conservative influence in the media. Though the liberal bias in the media is vastly overstated, it does exist. Situations like this prove it.

Let’s save our scathing disapprovals for those who deserve it.

Christopher Shelton is a journalism junior and may be reached at opinion@thedailycougar.com.

At 6:58 a.m. on Thursday, there were tons of cars on the road. Inside of each vehicle was someone gliding along to his or her profitable job that makes waking up early and sitting in traffic day-after-day, week-after-week, seem like a no-brainer. There is something else in each of those vehicles, and if you back up, you can see it — a college degree.

The University of Houston is one of the few public universities locally available to the city’s more than 2.1 million people. If we want people who want to work to be able to work, we need to make university degrees financially-accessible. Believe it or not, the cost of a degree is not universal and is not set by some higher powers. Sometimes, the control actually lies in our own hands.

Members of the Student Fees Advisory Committee propose to increase the per-semester student service fee by $50.

Given that entering students have at least eight semesters in front of them and the federal student loan rate in 2012-13 will be 6.8 percent, and that many loans run for 10 years, the fee increase would mean that someone without money is $550 further away from getting a university degree.

You can vote today and tomorrow almost anywhere on campus.

—Lara Appleby

Biology graduate student

Presidential candidate Newt Gingrich needs no introduction, being one of the most scandalized Republican runners. However, he apparently needs a lesson about college.

“Students take fewer classes per semester. They take more years to get through. Why? Because they have free money,” Gingrich said to Republicans in Florida last week.

The quote ended up in the Washington Post and spread to newspapers like the Houston Chronicle. There is no telling how many college students — former and present — read his words on the Internet.

If there were any young college students planning to vote for him prior to the remarks, there should be none afterward. Gingrich must know how wrong his words were. Not wrong in an insensitive or rude sense — wrong as in false.

First, there is “free” money, but there is no such thing as free money. Gingrich should be aware of this thanks to all the campaign contributions he’s received. Free money is as real as unicorns and honest politicians. What most students use to pay tuition is not “free” money: student loans and credit cards. Both of these things students must pay pack with interest.

Secondly, students take fewer classes per semester, true enough. Many students enroll longer and delay graduation. But this is because students have almost no money. With little money, many students take fewer classes and work to pay off their tuition.

The only answer to why Gingrich would alienate himself from young college-bound voters with such insults is that he thinks he does not need the young vote. By insulting the young, he compliments the old.

“I would tell students, ‘Get through as quick as you can. Borrow as little as you can. Have a part-time job.’ But that’s very different from the culture that has grown up in the last 20 years,” Gingrich said.

The only culture differences between now and 20 years ago is the cost of tuition. This may be news to Gingrich who has not attended college in years. He might expect an 18-year-old not to vote, but the average UH undergraduate is 22 years old. The average UH graduate student is 29. We’re not an anomaly, which puts his “culture of 20 years ago” comment out the window.

Age does not entitle him to be rude or ignorant. When he mentioned borrowing little and working part-time, he did not realize these are common steps, that completing college in eight semesters is no easy feat.

Other candidates have yet to show a cold shoulder to young voters. Rick Santorum was quoted saying that President Barack Obama wanted more students in college to “indoctrinate” the young into a “left-wing ideology,” but this isn’t technically insulting students or voters per se.

A 21-year-old in New Hampshire asked Mitt Romney in Dec. 2011 why college students should vote for him. Romney answered bluntly.

“What I can promise you is this: When you get out of college, if I’m president you’ll have a job,” Romney said. “If President Obama is re-elected, you will not be able to get a job.”

Admittedly, Romney was talking to only the one student. The message is still a bit hard to swallow. Will students not be able to get a job if the incumbent is re-elected?

Last but not least, Ron Paul has no trouble getting young voter support nor is he likely to insult them. Although Paul is not the only Republican candidate with a limited-government stance that appeals to young entrepreneurs, Paul won 31 percent of the youth vote (ages 18-29) in the South Carolina exit poll — showing off his popularity with student bodies. Gingrich got second place of that age group, but if he continues to make these insulting remarks about college students, that number might not mean much for long.

Not that it will make a difference if students stay indoors on election day. Some candidates are counting on it.

David Haydon is a political science senior and may be reached at opinion@thedailycougar.com.

We’re trying to build a new football stadium and renovate Hofheinz Pavilion while also trying to build new residence and dining halls — not to mention our attempt at raising admissions requirements. But has anyone stopped to think what students at UH students actually want?

It’s not news to anyone that parking on this campus is terrible. It can take students more than an hour to find parking between 10 a.m. and 2 p.m.

Sure, students receive e-mails at the beginning of the semester, warning them about the situation, but it’s not realistic for students to plan to come to school an hour in advance to make their hour and a half classes.

Furthermore, during game days — even for non-UH teams — parking is even more restricted. Should we really be putting more importance on sporting events than we are putting on education?

So what is the University doing to fix this problem? The construction of the new parking garage next to Robertson Stadium is a start, but when did UH start construction on it?

UH is also planning to build more residence halls, completely ignoring that the ones we have are unable to reach full occupancy. And don’t think an increased number of students in dorms would alleviate the parking situation.

With most dining options closed and a lack of things to do on campus during nights and weekends, students need their cars on campus just to entertain themselves.

Because UH is in the Third Ward with no viable dining options off-campus within walking distance, it forces students to either drive somewhere else or hope they don’t have a history of heart disease in their family. Maybe the University should be less focused on attracting new students and focus more on satisfying its current students’ needs.

UH students face an unstable financial environment. In 2009, 42 percent of new students took out loans to pay for their tuition while 82 percent received some form of financial aid.

UH is made up primarily of students who attempt to work their own way through school or who receive assistance of some sort to make their way through.

Moreover, the job market upon graduation is bleak. UH wants 39,820 students who are facing financial uncertainty and who are already having a difficult time paying for school to give them at least an additional $90,000,000.

Students will subsidize the athletics department to a tune of $4,407,707 this year. Every semester you are charged a student service fee. This semester the fee was $190. About 27 percent of that fee is allocated for intercollegiate athletics.

If the referendum passes, over the next 25 years, students would pay at least an additional $90 million on top of the $4.4 million that we already pay. Students would be spending over $210 million to subsidize the athletics department.

Alumni who attend the games are financially stable enough to spend money on UH. The cash-strapped students should not be asked to shoulder the burden.

— Samuel Brower, Ph.D. student, education

MegaUpload was raided and shut down earlier this month — and its principals charged — with numerous counts of copyright infringement, racketeering, and money laundering.

Founder Kim Dotcom was arrested in New Zealand in possession of forged travel documents and illegal weapons. He has since been classified as a significant flight risk and denied bail. The indictment alleges that MegaUpload made approximately $175 million last year providing access to copyrighted materials, and was visited by up to 50 million users each day.

MegaUpload did not provide copyrighted materials directly, but rather provided server space for users to upload files and then share a link with others, which would allow them to download the file.

The files were not hosted by users like torrents, which merely facilitate ports for getting in and out of the river of traffic. The site generated profit primarily from advertising and monthly fees for “premium” access, which allowed users space to store their files for sharing with others, as well as priority for downloading others’ files. Free users were given incentives to purchase a premium membership through various annoyances that accompanied every individual download.

MegaUpload executives claim that they did their absolute best to regulate user uploads in conjunction with the provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, but many of the site’s features revolved around user incentives that were clearly designed to encourage distribution of copyrighted content. A good example of this would be their uploader reward program, which encourages users to distribute links to copyrighted material to as many people as possible in exchange for account credits, which can eventually be redeemed for cash or other rewards.

It’s difficult to believe that Dotcom was unaware what the site was being used for and that its operations were likely illegal. He is no stranger to legal trouble. He has been arrested previously in the ‘90s for stealing calling card numbers and in 2002 for insider trading and embezzlement. Dotcom is a notoriously flamboyant character in the Internet security industry. He owns the most expensive home in New Zealand, as well more than 20 vehicles — including a Rolls Royce Phantom with the vanity plate reading “God.”

He has also occasionally participated in Europe’s Gumball 3000 rally. Dotcom knew exactly what the site was being used for, and he maintained the site because it was quite profitable. The music and film industries want US authorities to make an example out of Kim Dotcom.

A high profile arrest could “change the calculus,” according to MPAA production executive Kevin Suh. But the film and music industries are trying to change the wrong variable. Rather than cracking down on pirating, they should make mainstream purchase less objectionable — iTunes music service has been profitable and popular offering downloads for lower price than the physical disc, as has Amazon’s service.

Providing a cheap, legal alternative to piracy won’t eliminate it entirely, but it will bring over the consumers on the margin. Eventually the loss of those consumers will cause fewer entrepreneurs like Kim Dotcom to enter the market.

A positive incentive, like fixing the problems that led to the growth of piracy will be far more effective than cracking down on file-sharers.

Emily Brooks is an economics senior and may be reached at opinion@thedailycougar.com.

Graduation time is around the corner for the Spring 2012 class. Time to celebrate. Time to think ahead. Time to go out into workforce.

With student debt piling up and the cost of living rising, is it worth it? For some the answer is yes. Although unemployment rates may be high for certain majors, rest assured you will be ready when opportunity strikes. Having your degree will be essential to landing that dream job. Others feel the “system” has failed. In 2010 the average student incurred between $50,000 to 70,000 worth of debt.

Students must then ask “Did I choose the right major?” An industry that will be in demand. A field of study that is applicable to my degree. Or will the unemployment office be your next interview?

That may not be so easy for some students. A recent study showed that in 2009, 22 percent of college students were unemployed and another 20 percent were working in a field that did not require a degree. Do the math. Nearly half of all college graduates were either unemployed or working in menial positions.

How is this possible? While many students put in a lot time and effort obtaining a degree to only find out the job market is over-saturated. It is imperative that students do their due diligence.

It is also important to choose a career that brings happiness, as well as, financial security.

In such a volatile economy it is sometimes hard, but not impossible to find employment. One could always be more advantageous and seek a higher level of education. Research has shown lower levels of unemployment amongst master’s and doctorate degree holders. For example, a New York Times article mentioned more than 60 percent of those who graduated in the last five years say they will need more formal education to be successful.

Trina Thompson, a student who enrolled in Monroe College in New York (in 2009) is suing the institute because she cannot find a job. She owes $70,000 in school loans. “They have not tried hard enough to help me,” Thompson said in an interview.

Persistence is key. A job at Starbucks or Macy’s may have to pay the bills temporarily. Do what’s necessary as means to an end.

Monroe’s spokesman Gary Axelback said, “This lawsuit is completely without merit.”

Any college graduate would agree. Who sues their institute for lack of employment? If that were the case, some colleges and universities would be shut down. In the long run, students are better off with their degree than without it.

“The college prides itself on the excellent career-development support that we provide to each of our students, and this case does not deserve further consideration,” Axelback said.

Students could always migrate to a state with a better economy. Houstonians wouldn’t have to travel far. Moody’s Economy.com reported the Lone Star State had three out of the 10 cities with the lowest unemployment rates Houston was ranked first, followed by District of Columbia, Minneapolis, Minn. and New York City.

The article also said Houston’s growth was inevitable with its business-friendly environment and abundance of oil-money.

Of course no matter what you do in life it’s always best to have some sort of cash flow. It may not be what you want at first, but if it is, enjoy the icing on your cake.

Kamilah Sage is an economics senior and may be reached at opinion@thedailycougar.com.

This suppression did not go unnoticed by Reporters Without Borders, who recently released their 2011-2012 global Press Freedom Index. The index reveals that the US has fallen 27 places since the advent of the Occupy Wall Street movement and its subsequent crackdown.

The US is now ranked 47th in the world on the Press Freedom Index. This steep decline is troubling, but it should not come as a surprise to those who have followed the coverage of the Occupy movement.

The people of this movement, even if you do not agree with their ideas, should be applauded for the courage they have displayed in the face of police brutality and governmental complacency. The reporters who strive to provide our nation with coverage of this movement should also be applauded for their bravery.

The fact that reporters are being arrested along with protestors should indicate to every American that freedom of speech is no longer valued by our government. They have sent this message to our nation’s police officers, and those officers have relayed that information to the public in the form of brutal attacks and arrests.

If our nation is to endure as a free society, a place where free speech is valued and reporters can practice their profession, then change needs to happen at the top. It needs to happen in D.C; it needs to happen in city halls; and it needs to happen in local police stations.

We need to vote into office Americans who respect the values our nation was founded on. Only then will we be able to ensure that our nation remains a place where freedom of speech is valued.

The theme of the night was jobs, specifically the countless manufacturing jobs overseas in China. It’s high time that these jobs come back to America, and, according to the president, there’s going to be more than enough incentive to come back. He’s planning to take out the tax deductions and tax breaks for companies operating heavily overseas and hand them over to the companies that are creating jobs for Americans.

The president has proposed a basic minimum tax for all multinational companies. Better yet, he’s planning them at a time when, according to the CEO of Master Lock whom the president had spoken to a few weeks prior, “It now makes business sense for him to bring jobs back home” due to rising operating costs overseas.

I say “further” because it would be defying common business sense; any American company that continues to base so much of their production overseas with no intention to move back to the United States must be penalized severely for what I see to be as a directly hostile attitude towards the American economy. If they choose to continue operating overseas, they’re actively telling Americans that despite common sense, they’d rather hire Chinese workers instead of American ones. They’re willing to go out of their way to support China.

Continuing with his platform of more jobs for more Americans, Obama has advocated government investments into the natural gas and clean energy industries. As a proud Texan, I’m admittedly and unashamedly biased concerning his idea to open up our natural gas reserves. The Lone Star State will benefit the most out of the rest of the nation.

However, in his address, Obama made the commitment to end subsidies to oil companies, apparently starting with his decision earlier this month to reject the Keystone XL Pipeline that would run from Canada to Texas. It would have created at least 2,000 temporary jobs in the immediate short-term and at least 20,000 permanent jobs in the very near future.

In solidifying his stance against Big Oil, the president is going to endanger our economic growth. True, the point of clean energy is to eliminate our dependence on foreign oil, but only because that oil is coming from a region that only benefits from our dependence, not share in the neediness. The Keystone XL Pipeline would have been beneficial for us and our northern neighbors, and now there are talks about the Canadians cooperating with the Chinese.

If the president insists on a shift towards clean energy, he’s going to need a growing number of educated workers in those fields. This is especially true considering the fact that the “growing industries in science and technology have twice as many openings as we have workers who can do the job,” Obama said.

While his intentions are indeed noble, his methods are at odds with reality. He proposes to revoke a student’s ability to drop out of school until they are either 18 or graduated. The president has put an emphasis on giving teachers breathing room to actually teach the material and not the test; however, retaining willing drop-outs will only force them to either be kicked into graduating or force them to stick around a few extra years. Sleeping and texting in class has become the “cool” thing to do nowadays; I doubt keeping the kids longer will do much of anything.

Obama has equally condemned both sides for acting stupidly and stubbornly in a way that I find treasonous considering all that’s at stake. In what has to be my most beloved proposal from Obama, the idea that Senate needs to pass a measure requiring that all judicial and public service nominees receive a simple up-or-down vote within 90 days, the American people are going to get what we’ve been asking for: the ability to get a refund for our elected representative. Some of us would rather elect Mr. Coffee for Senator. Make this a yearly thing, an annual check-up or at the very least something you do when over 75 percent of the country hates an entire branch of government.

Something that hits further to home for us Coogs is that President Obama has “put colleges and universities on notice: If [they] can’t stop tuition from going up, the fund [they] get from taxpayers will go down.” Coogs, this means us. Our tuition is bound to jump thanks to our new Tier One status. It’s inevitable. In order to combat the greater demands put upon us, we need to raise tuition. Yet the president wants to stop federal aid for us wanting to get better.

To wrap up the night, Obama made his pledge for solidarity and unification. Given how livid people have been for the last few years, it’s more than necessary to try and convince us to hang on. The public’s already shown how hard it’ll hit back after the outstanding Internet uprising against SOPA/PIPA.

Like everything else Obama proposed in his State of the Union, these are all but promises of yet another politician. When the Democrats controlled the House and the Senate, things barely got passed, if at all. With Republicans and Democrats at all-out civil war, asking for just one of his promises to be fulfilled would be a stretch.

These promises and proposals- — the ones that I do support — I do so fully and whole-heartedly hope as a citizen of the greatest nation on Earth that they are not empty promises. Americans are sick of the false words of hope and change. We’re tired of waiting. America needs the change he promised.

Barack Obama needs to remember that if people are forced to vote for him because of the poor quality of competitors this year, we’ll be expecting even more of him in his second term.

James Wang is a history freshman and may be reached at opinion@thedailycougar.com.

But in their stead was something more necessary for our country: a politician shining light on both the good and abysmal corridors lining our nation’s establishment. If efficiency was his goal, the man-in-office hit a homer. And rather than any sort of gut-busting revelation, the political sphere could do with some quiet and meaningful introspection.

If you were looking for surprises, you spent an evening on the couch in disappointment. The “food stamp president” highlighted the issues he’s come to identify with as well as those that have risen since he’s been in office. The backlash of globalization on American jobs, the country’s reluctance to utilize its own fuel reserves and the uppercut education has taken in our society’s social spectrum. Rather than innovate with impossible solutions to unsolved problems, Obama chose to readdress the issues at hand with the frankness they deserved and with the methods he proposed for handling them proving even more frank.

Not surprisingly, Congress received a substantial amount of attention — more for what it’s failed to accomplish than its successes. Its successful attempts at piddling with the nation’s financial security were praised for what they were worth. Along with this attention came a reprise of all the error, including the assurance that, following his re-election, the mistakes wouldn’t make a second appearance. If there was any cause for alarm, it would have been the silence surrounding the upcoming election. Obama spent less time dissecting his potential competitors than he did praising President Bush Jr. If not for the date and time positioned at the bottom of the broadcast, one might have thought that they were watching a president speaking to his audience about the most immediate issues at hand.

And in all honesty, what was there to say? With four suitors at the door sporting new policies, wives, psychological predispositions and religions on a daily basis, there would have been nothing to pinpoint. It would have been a waste of breath and energy to address even one of them. Knowing this, Obama chose to do just that. Rather than throwing dirt and scuffing shoes, the president talked about his presidency instead. The message served its purpose: a skeleton of how the country is doing at this moment in time. It wasn’t glamorous, but that’s only appropriate. We’ve seen better days. Even still, in the midst of ongoing troubles in state and commerce, it was refreshing to see a politician address every guest in the room, purple elephants and all.

Whether describing the reprieve of the 1 percent, of the consternation of everyone else, that sort of straightforwardness is 100 percent admirable.

Bryan Washington is a sociology freshman and may be reached at opinion@thedailycougar.com.

If approved, the fee increase would be in effect for up to 25 years. The next generation of Cougars will be affected by the increase, so UH students should carefully weigh the pros and cons of the fee increase before voting on it.

A negative aspect of this fee increase is that it is coming at a terrible time. It would be difficult to find a single Cougar who has not been affected by the recession. While $45 a semester doesn’t seem like a lot of money when tacked onto a student’s semester total, that $45 could be used to buy two weeks of groceries.

Another negative aspect of the increase is that many UH students would rather see the money go towards furthering the academic goals of our campus. While we always have a good turn out at our football and basketball games, there are many students who care more about their academic pursuits than attending games. These students would likely rather see extra money spent making UH a more academically rigorous environment.

But on the flip side, having state-of-the-art football and basketball stadiums could attract wealthy donors to our University. Not to mention prospective Cougars may be attracted to UH because of the prestige of our athletic teams and the grandeur of the buildings they play in.

Students can think of the fee as a way for them to give back to the University. When they come back for a football or basketball game after graduation, they would feel proud that they had a part in the construction of the new football stadium and the facelift of Hofheinz Pavilion.

There will be 12 voting locations on campus, including M. D. Anderson Library and the University Center. Be sure to have your voice heard.

The accessibility to porn used to be limited. Imagine the clichéd scene of times past when, by chance, a teenager would find a male relative’s Playboy magazine hidden under their mattress. Now access is boundless because a quick search on Google yields thousands of links to free and paid content.

One can even access porn through their cell phones, and smart phones have brought the invention of “hook-up apps.” Those apps are usually advertised as “social” and “dating” apps, and while they may have been created with good intentions, they create a society of instant sexual gratification.

There is also the term “sexting,” which involves the sending and receiving of explicit images and texts. Sexting is becoming the “gateway” to sex for young teens.

It can be said that Houston is affected more than most cities. According to okcupid.com, one of the fastest-growing free dating sites for singles, Houston was voted as one of the top 10 most promiscuous cities. Okcupid.com gathered the percentages of users from each city that chose “casual sex” as one of the relationship types they were seeking and Houston was number 10.

As they say, the proof is in the pudding — or in this case, proof is in the syphilis. The instances of syphilis have exploded here.

In 2007, there was a volatile outbreak of cases. The city had to rein it in with free clinics and awareness drives. The percentage of cases had nearly doubled from the previous year, and the trend is still rising.

What is more disturbing than the rise of sexting is that evidence points to it correlating to teens partaking in group sex.

A new study released by Boston University’s School of Public Health states that teens as young as 14 are engaging in group sex.

More than half of the teens polled said at least one of the people in the orgies did not wear a condom.

The study also came to the conclusion that those who had watched porn in the month prior to the study were five-times more likely to have group sex. In other words, those who watched porn more often were more likely to indulge.

Most of the girls stated they were forced, high or drunk when they partook in the group sex.

As much as teens like to deny it, they are very impressionable. When they see a certain behavior, they absorb it like a sponge. The accessibility and the ease with which one can find sex today is changing our views about it. The change is already visible.

When asked why he thought this was happening, political science junior Tyler Albarado said, “Parents need to be more involved in their children’s lives. They are doing very little to prevent these things from occurring by not taking simple measures like talking to their kids or spending time with them.”

In the end, it’s the parents’ fault because they either ignored the whole concept of sex or they didn’t take steps to involve themselves in their childrens’ lives or check their computers.

Alejandro Caballero is a creative writing junior and may be reached at opinion@thedailycougar.com.